Inside Electionshttp://insideelections.com/
Inside Elections is a non-partisan newsletter covering U.S. House, Senate, and gubernatorial campaigns, Presidential politics, and political developments.Stuart Rothenberg2019-02-20T14:05:00+00:00enCopyright 2019A Few Thoughts on the State of the Union Addresshttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/a-few-thoughts-on-the-state-of-the-union-address
2019-02-07T01:51:00+00:00
By Nathan L. Gonzales

I did something dangerous Tuesday night. I watched the State of the Union and the Democratic response on my own, without Twitter as a crutch. I even watched the C-SPAN feed on my phone in order to avoid commentary from the networks and cable channels.

My goal was to avoid groupthink and try to formulate some coherent thoughts and analyses without being persuaded by my friends in the media. Here’s what stuck out to me.

Unclear impact
Everyone take a deep breath. It’s going to take a few days before we know whether President Donald Trump’s speech was effective and changed public opinion. It matters more what real voters thought about the event than talking heads on TV. Initial polls taken Tuesday night by CNN and CBS were positive for the president, but it’s much better to wait for some traditional, live-caller surveys to see if Trump’s job approval changed and if any movement lasts more than a few days. I start as skeptical that the State of the Union will fundamentally alter the political dynamic surrounding the president because nothing appears to fundamentally alter the political dynamic surrounding the president. He’s a polarizing figure.

The moment
I think the most memorable moment was when the Democratic women of the House, dressed in suffragette white, stood in raucous applause to the president’s mention of women getting jobs and the record number of female lawmakers. It was stunning because everyone was happy, but for different reasons. The Democratic women took it as public acknowledgement of their achievement and an opportunity to celebrate their new majority. The president thought they were applauding him and, with both parties cheering and chanting “U-S-A,” it felt like a campaign rally, where Trump is most comfortable.

Pivot to bipartisanship?
In the beginning and end of the speech, Trump struck a conciliatory tone and challenged Congress to reach for greatness, set aside partisanship and embrace an exciting new journey. It sounded like the type of speech most people expect a president to give, but those passages can’t be viewed in a vacuum. This State of the Union was delayed because of partisan bickering. And while some people heard a call to bipartisanship, Democrats heard the president call them soft on gangs, socialists, and baby killers, too focused on investigating him.

Can anything get done?
About an hour into the almost 90-minute address, there was a list of issues that could receive bipartisan support: prescription drug prices, eliminating the HIV epidemic in the next 10 years, more funding to counter childhood cancer, paid family leave, and, predictably, infrastructure. But the question is whether both parties can move beyond the stalemate surrounding funding the government and the fight over the border wall.

Two speeches, two Americas
I thought Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams did a fine job in avoiding a Saturday Night Live-worthy gaffe or moment. It’s a hard speech to give and she did what she needed to do. But what stuck out to me was her focus on an entirely different set of issues compared to Trump’s speech. She talked about furloughed federal workers, “children in cages,” gun violence, climate change, judges, and access to voting. I don’t think the president talked about any of those things, at least not in the same context. The parties can’t agree on what problems to focus on, let alone what solutions are necessary.

Faces of change
Another memorable moment was briefly toward the beginning of the speech when Trump talked about cooperation, compromise and common good. The camera cut away to a shot of West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin III on his feet, clapping, while New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat behind him doing nothing. It’s a great example of the different ways Democrats approach the president, especially given the number of Democrats in the new Congress who represent areas that support Trump. It also represents the challenge Democrats will face balancing varying political realities moving forward.

Foreshadowing the wall
As expected, the president did not declare a national emergency on the southern border, but he did lay out the case he’ll likely make if that time comes. With stats and stories about crime and MS-13, you can expect to hear much of the same after the Feb. 15 deadline, if Congress doesn’t come up with an agreement that he finds sufficient.

The most awkward moment
Trump voiced his disapproval about investigations twice during his speech, with mixed results. The first time was in a list of complaints against Democrats, and Republicans in the chamber applauded the line. But the president immediately came back to the point and mentioned investigations again, and there was hardly any applause or reaction from either side. I thought it was going to be another Jeb Bush “Please clap” moment. I think it’s an indicator that while Republicans might not agree with the investigations, they’re not going to give a standing ovation to the president on a call to end them.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/a-few-thoughts-on-the-state-of-the-union-addressToo Early for Senate Ratings?http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/too-early-for-senate-ratings
2019-02-01T19:28:00+00:00
A couple decades ago, The Rothenberg Political Report would wait months before placing individual Senate races into specific ratings categories, admitting that the election cycle was far from taking shape. But that would be almost unthinkable today. For example, most media outlets that handicap races released 2020 Senate ratings before the 2018 election results were certified. There’s a significant temptation to feed the beast.

We held off releasing our initial 2020 Senate ratings until our Jan. 4 issue, but it’s a fair question to ask: how predictive are early ratings anyway?

Early ratings are an initial look at which races…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/too-early-for-senate-ratingsReport Shorts (Feb. 1, 2019)http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/report-shorts-feb.-1-2019
2019-02-01T19:27:00+00:00California’s 50th District. Alex Balkin became the second Democrat to announce a challenge to indicted GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter. 2018 nominee Ammar Campa-Najjar was the first. Balkin formerly worked at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Department of Defense. The district is considerably favorable to Republicans, considering Hunter was under indictment last year and still won re-election by 4 points. Remember, California has the top two primary system, so Balkin, Campa-Najjar and potentially others will likely be battling to finish second behind the congressman in order to move on to the general election.

Georgia Senate. Stacey Abrams said she will…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

If Sen. Susan Collins runs for a fifth term, she ought to expect a very different race than in the past. Forget coasting to victory, no matter the opponent or even the nature of the election cycle.

Collins will start off as vulnerable — a top Democratic target in a state carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The Maine Republican’s great strength over the years has been her moderation and thoughtfulness. She mulls over issues extensively, almost always looking for middle ground.

She supports abortion rights and LGBT issues, and she has broken with her party on topics ranging from the environment to taxes to the Affordable Care Act.

But Collins’ vote to confirm Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court gives Democrats an opportunity to retire her next year — as does the fact that her contest could determine which party controls the Senate.

A remarkable politician
Collins has had an extensive career of public service. She has also proven to be a savvy campaigner and able vote-getter, and she fits the mold of moderate Maine Republicans like former Sen. William Cohen, former Gov. John McKernan, former Sen. Olympia Snowe and, of course, the late Sen. Margaret Chase Smith.

Collins served as a congressional staffer (for Cohen), as commissioner of the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation (in McKernan’s cabinet), as regional director of the Small Business Administration, and as the deputy state treasurer of Massachusetts before making an unsuccessful run for governor in 1994. (Independent Angus King won that race, and Collins finished a somewhat distant third, behind former Democratic Rep. Joseph Brennan, who had served two terms as governor previously. Her showing did not suggest she had much of a political future.)

Two years after that gubernatorial loss, Collins ran for Cohen’s open seat. In the fall, she defeated Brennan by just over five points, 49.2 percent to 43.9 percent.

Collins’ showing was noteworthy since President Bill Clinton was carrying Maine comfortably at the same time.

Six years later, in 2002, Collins faced a serious challenger in former Maine Senate Majority Leader Chellie Pingree, now a congresswoman. But the year was a good one for incumbents, and Collins won re-election comfortably, 58 percent to 42 percent.

In 2008, Collins was challenged by 1st District Democratic Rep. Tom Allen, who on paper certainly looked like a serious threat. Elected to Congress six times, he represented half the state in the House.

With an unpopular outgoing Republican president in George W. Bush and a dynamic Democratic presidential nominee in Barack Obama, Collins clearly was swimming against a strong current.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain drew only 40 percent of the vote in Maine, winning just one of the state’s 16 counties.

Nationally, the GOP lost 21 House seats. But even in that inhospitable political environment, Collins clobbered Allen 61.3 percent to 38.6 percent – winning every county in the state.

Six years later, in Obama’s second midterm election, Collins cruised to re-election with over 68 percent of the vote against a weak Democratic challenger, Shenna Bellows.

2020
In politics, as well as investing, “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” That is particularly true of Collins next year, since her support of Kavanaugh will likely generate a well-funded Democratic challenger.

Democrats will surely argue that Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts abortion rights and LGBT equality at risk, and they will note that re-electing Collins all but guarantees continued Republican control the Senate, which will translate into more conservative judges and more power for the GOP’s right wing.

That argument, if successful, would make the Maine Senate race less about Collins and her service to the state and more about President Donald Trump and continued Republican control of the Senate.

That narrative would not be ideal for Collins, since Democrats now control the state’s governorship and both chambers of the Maine Legislature.

But unlike 1994, 2006, 2010 or even 2018, when midterm voters sent messages of dissatisfaction about the sitting president’s performance, 2020 is a presidential year.

Voters will have separate votes to cast for president and the Senate, which means that Maine voters can send separate messages about Trump and Collins, if they prefer.

Still, with American politics becoming more partisan and ticket-splitting less common, Collins will need to convince Maine voters that she is the same independent voice that many Mainers thought she was.

And she has ammunition to make her case, including her vote to save the Affordable Care Act and her Washington Post op-ed explaining why she could not vote for Trump for president.

A handful of interesting Democratic names are being floated as possible challengers to Collins, including former national security adviser Susan Rice, 1st District Rep. Pingree, former Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree (Chellie’s daughter) and current Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon.

Rice has not stopped speculation that she may be interested, but her lack of deep roots in the state would seem to be a serious liability in Maine.

The bottom line
Collins was underestimated politically for years, some of it because of a halting public speaking style. But her Kavanaugh vote — and her explanation shortly before she cast it — undermined a political brand that she has built over the years.

The question is how damaged she is, as well as who will carry the Democratic banner against her.

So, while it is too early to know whether she can win another term, one thing is certain: Susan Collins has a problem.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/maine-senate-how-vulnerable-is-susan-collinsReport Shorts (Jan. 18, 2019)http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/report-shorts-jan.-18-2019
2019-01-18T19:28:00+00:00California’s 50th District. Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar came within 4 points of defeating GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter in 2016 and announced he will seek a rematch in 2020. But there’s a chance neither man makes it to the next general election.

Hunter is under indictment and facing trial in September, and there’s a chance he doesn’t seek re-election or is otherwise pressured to vacate his office early. Campa-Najjar was endorsed by the state party in 2018 and received more votes than any other Democrat in the primary, but that was just short of 18 percent. If Hunter looks increasingly vulnerable, then other…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/report-shorts-jan.-18-2019Can Doug Jones win a full term in Alabama?http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/can-doug-jones-win-a-full-term-in-alabama
2019-01-17T16:23:00+00:00
By Stuart Rothenberg

Alabama’s junior senator, Democrat Doug Jones, has been in office for only 13 months, but he’s already preparing to face voters again in 2020. With the Senate at 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats, Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer can’t afford to lose any seats next year if he hopes to win back control of the chamber. Does Jones have any chance of winning, or is the handwriting already on the wall for a GOP pick-up in Alabama?

The top race handicappers are split on Jones’s re-election prospects.

Inside Elections rates the race “Leans Republican,” while The Cook Political Report handicaps the contest as “Leans Democrat” and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball classifies it as a “Toss-up.”

Actually, I don’t agree with any of those calls, though I’m closest to Inside Elections’, where I remain a senior editor. I don’t think Jones has much chance at all of holding on to his seat next year.

Simply put, his special election win was a fluke, not likely to be repeated.

The special
Jones, 64, served a little more than three years as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

He had never been elected to office when he jumped into the Senate special election to fill the remainder of Jeff Sessions’s unexpired term.

Jones had little serious Democratic opposition, winning the primary, and the nomination, with two-thirds of the vote. But only 165,000 votes were cast in the primary, much less than half of the 423,000 votes cast on the GOP side.

No Republican received a majority of that primary’s vote, so the party had a runoff between the top-two finishers: former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore (38.9 percent); and appointed incumbent and former state Attorney General Luther Strange (32.8 percent).

Brooks called the runoff “an epic battle between the people of Alabama who put America first and the Washington swamp that hopes to buy our Senate seat and put America last.”

Moore won the runoff with 54.6 percent of the vote and moved into the special election as a damaged nominee.

However, many national Republicans, including President Donald Trump, who had preferred Strange, rallied around Moore’s candidacy, hoping to keep the seat in GOP hands.

Moore brought a lifetime of political baggage to the Dec. 12, 2017, special election, including being removed from the bench once, being suspended from the bench another time, alleged ties to white nationalist groups, and allegations of sexual misconduct over the years.

Jones ended up squeezing past Moore 50 percent to 48.3 percent in a major upset — and the first Senate victory for a Democrat in Alabama since Richard Shelby was re-elected in 1992. (Shelby switched to the GOP after the 1994 elections.)

2020 outlook
Jones’s special election victory was entirely due to Moore’s nomination.

It was not a repudiation of Trump, a reflection of the state’s partisan realignment or evidence of Jones’ unique appeal.

Fairly or unfairly, Moore was seen by many state voters, including conservatives and Republicans, as a sexual predator, and some of those voters either cast their ballots for Jones or stayed home on Election Day.

In a sense, the special election became a referendum on Moore.

Jones, who had no legislative record that needed defending, campaigned as a moderate Democrat.

That made him acceptable to some voters looking for an alternative to the former judge. While partisan Republicans and conservatives still saw a vote for Jones as a vote against Trump and his conservative agenda, others simply regarded Moore as unacceptable.

Indeed, given all of Moore’s personal and political baggage, and a career of confrontation and controversy, it’s remarkable that he won a Republican Senate primary and almost won the vote in the special election.

Alabama remains as Republican as it has been for the past decade or two.

The GOP vote in the state has been stable during the past four presidential races. George W. Bush drew 62.5 percent in the 2004 presidential contest, while John McCain drew 60.3 percent four years later. Mitt Romney received 60.6 percent of the vote in 2012, and Trump won 62.1 percent in 2016.

Trump remains popular in the state. A December 2018 Morning Consult poll of the states found that his job approval had slipped in Alabama from 62 percent in January 2017 to 58 percent last month, a relatively small dip.

His populism appeals to many white voters in the state. If Republicans select a 2020 nominee without Moore’s baggage — which should be easy — Jones will face a fundamentally different challenge.

He will need to get the votes of Republicans and conservatives who remain loyal to Trump and to the Republican agenda on taxes, spending, immigration, health care, abortion and gay/transgender rights.

Jones hasn’t been the most liberal Democrat, but his high-profile vote against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could well be enough to define him to Alabama voters as liberal and anti-Trump. (West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who narrowly won re-election in November from another very Republican state, was the lone Democrat to vote for Kavanaugh’s nomination.)

Given the state’s fundamentals, I don’t see how the Alabama race can be rated anything other than “Likely Republican.”

The state is polarized along racial and partisan lines, and the 2020 Senate race is likely to look nothing like the 2017 contest, when the Republican nominee had baggage that was disqualifying.

Obviously, Jones’ prospects would improve if the Republicans select another damaged Senate nominee, or even if Democrats nominate a more appealing presidential nominee (possibly like former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu or former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper).

So, while there are developments that could change Jones’ prospects, making them better or even worse than they start, the reality of the 2020 Alabama Senate race is simple: Doug Jones is a Democrat and a moderate in a state that is very Republican and very conservative. He starts, at least in my book, as a heavy underdog for re-election.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/can-doug-jones-win-a-full-term-in-alabama5 reasons why there’s still no end to the shutdownhttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/5-reasons-why-theres-still-no-end-to-the-shutdown
2019-01-14T17:06:00+00:00
By Nathan L. Gonzales

Three weeks into the government shutdown, I’m not sure how this standoff ends, but I do know there are multiple reasons for how we got here.

What’s the problem? Democrats and Republicans can’t find a solution because they’re trying to solve two different problems. If you listen carefully, Democrats are trying to end the government shutdown while Republicans are trying to find money to build a wall.

No deadline. It’s normal for the parties to disagree on how to compromise and what a compromise should look like. That’s been happening for generations. But now the parties can’t even agree on when to compromise. The potential for a government shutdown looked like a deadline, but we’ve blown past that and that’s clearly not enough of a concern to force either party’s hand.

Political gain. President Donald Trump and the Democrats both believe that the other side will be blamed for a prolonged government shutdown. With that mentality, there’s no incentive to compromise or give ground. And each party’s base is even encouraging their principals to stand firm without compromise. There are a handful of Republicans, facing difficult re-election races, siding with Democrats to reopen the government and then continue negotiating. But that’s not enough people to persuade the president.

Limited scope of a shutdown. In spite of the rhetoric and apocalyptic media coverage, we’re talking about a partial government shutdown that directly impacts approximately 800,000 people. Those are real people with real families and real bills, but it’s also fraction of the more than 300 million people in the country. I rarely hear much about national parks until there’s a shutdown. If the shutdown directly affected more people, there would be more pressure on the president and Congress to act.

Campaign promises. I still believe that Trump thinks of himself as a deal-maker more than a Republican, and that he normally cares less about what or who a deal involves and just wants to get a deal done and take credit for it. But this involves a campaign promise, and he feels compelled to deliver. On the flip side, many Democrats believe they were elected to be a “check” on Trump or to oppose him altogether. That dynamic doesn’t lead to compromise.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/5-reasons-why-theres-still-no-end-to-the-shutdown2020 Senate Overview (Jan. 4, 2019): We’ve Only Just Begunhttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-weve-only-just-begun
2019-01-04T19:30:00+00:00
President Donald Trump declared victory on Election Night 2018 when Republicans picked up a couple Senate seats, keeping their majority. But Democrats held their losses to a minimum in the face of a challenging map, which keeps them within reach of the majority in 2020.

The number of seats Democrats need to control the Senate depends on the outcome of the presidential race. A gain of four seats will result in a majority no matter the presidential outcome, while a gain of three seats would be enough for a new Democratic vice president to be the tie-breaker.

While Republicans are…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-weve-only-just-begun2020 Senate Overview (Jan. 1, 2019) Alabama - Kansashttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-jan.-1-2019-alabama-kansas
2019-01-04T19:29:00+00:00Alabama. Doug Jones (D), elected 2017 special (50%). Jones defeated former state supreme court justice Roy Moore in a high-profile special election. It was the first Senate win for Alabama Democrats since 1992, when now-GOP Sen. Richard Shelby was re-elected as a Democrat. (He switched parties in 1994.) Even with Jones’ victory, Alabama has a Baseline Democratic performance of just 39 percent compared to a GOP performance of 60 percent. That means the senator should be at least a slight underdog.

Of course, it’s unclear who Jones will face in the general election. Rep. Bradley Byrne, who represents Mobile and…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-jan.-1-2019-alabama-kansas2020 Senate Overview (Jan. 4, 2019) Kentucky - New Mexicohttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-jan.-4-2019-kentucky-new-mexico
2019-01-04T19:28:00+00:00Kentucky. Mitch McConnell (R), elected 1984 (50%), 1990 (52%), 1996 (55%), 2002 (65%), 2008 (53%) and 2014 (56%). As majority leader of the Senate and a critical piece of President Trump’s effort to reshape the courts through judicial confirmations, McConnell is and will be a Democratic target. But defeating him in Kentucky is a different story.

McConnell was a target in 2014 when he defeated Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes by 15 points in what was considered a competitive race. Last year, her father was indicted for making illegation donations to the campaign and covering them up.

Democrats…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-jan.-4-2019-kentucky-new-mexico2020 Senate Overview (Jan. 4, 2019) North Carolina - Wyominghttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/2020-senate-overview-jan.-4-2019-north-carolina-wyoming
2019-01-04T19:27:00+00:00North Carolina. Thom Tillis (R), elected 2014 (49%). The Republican defeated Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan in one of the closest races of the 2014 cycle. Tillis will be a target this cycle considering Barack Obama won the state in 2008 and Democrats won the governorship in 2016. But the party has to be wondering what happened in 2018, when they fell short in competitive House races.

The nature of North Carolina should breed a competitive contest. Republicans have a narrow 50-49 percent Baseline advantage. In 2016, President Trump won by 4 points, but with less than 50 percent, and GOP…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

I love elections, particularly congressional races, but I’m just not in a hurry to jump to 2020. And I’m completely fine with holding off on releasing our race ratings until next year.

If I didn’t like elections, I would probably need to take a long look at doing something else with my life, although at this point I’m not even sure what that would be. My previous experience includes working the corner as a human directional (the politically correct term for sign twirler), making pizzas at Figaro’s, digging irrigation trenches on campus, and folding jeans at Urban Outfitters.

When I started working at The Rothenberg Political Report more than 17 years ago, there was something called an “off year.” I know, it sounds strange. Sure, there were a handful of states that chose to elect their governors at weird times, but federal races were slower in coming together.

Not anymore.

Whether it’s the increased importance of fundraising, the pressure to clear the field of other contenders, or just the constant mandate to “win the day” every day, our election “cycles” are constant.

Candidates are already jockeying for position in some key races, we’re closer to having a new senator from Arizona, and I’m sure some other incumbents are contemplating retirement where open seats could be game-changers.

But the analysis can wait a few weeks. The world isn’t going to end without my hot takes. It’s OK to pause, take a deep breath, and recover from the 2018 (and 2016) elections while enjoying the holidays. Spend some time with the family you love (and the family you don’t.) Get outside. Eat delicious baked goods. And reflect on the important things in life, including how in the world the Seattle Seahawks are going to make the playoffs.

I realize some folks — OK, most folks — have already released 2020 ratings, and we won’t wait forever to acknowledge the obvious just to stick it to the establishment. The first issue of Inside Elections in January will be a 2020 Senate Overview and our House ratings won’t be too far behind.

]]>
http://www.insideelections.com/news/article/why-were-not-releasing-2020-race-ratings-yet﻿North Carolina: Blue Wave Steered Clear of ‘Blue Moon’ Electionhttp://www.insideelections.com/news/article/north-carolina-blue-wave-steered-clear-of-blue-moon-election
2018-12-14T19:30:00+00:00
Democrats gained at least 40 House seats in races across the country, but the wave’s course veered from two key states: Ohio and North Carolina.

Looking at top-of-the-ballot results, it’s no surprise that Democrats failed to chip into Ohio’s House delegation. Democratic performance statewide indicated a fundamental problem for the party in the Buckeye State, with Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown’s closer-than-expected victory against an underwhelming challenger and a 36-year politician winning the governorship for Republicans.

Like in Ohio, North Carolina also included three Democratic takeover targets. The outcome of the 9th District race, originally called for Republican Mark Harris, is…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

Baseline captures a state or congressional district’s political performance by combining all federal and state election results over the last four election cycles into a single average. VAR measures the relative strength of political candidates by comparing their vote share in a given election to their party’s Baseline.

Before the midterms, we rolled out initial Baseline and VAR statistics for the 33 states that held Senate elections in 2018. Now that the midterms have concluded, we have a whole new cycle of election results…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.

With the 2018 elections coming to an end, it’s clear that voters set a modern record for turnout in a midterm. And there’s no reason to believe voters won’t set another record two years from now.

According to the United States Election Project, turnout this year was nearly 50 percent of the voting-eligible population, the highest for a midterm in more than a century.

President Donald Trump deserves virtually all of the credit for that mark. Voters turned out en masse to oppose him by voting for Democrats, while others showed up to support his GOP allies. That fundamental dynamic is unlikely to change when he presumably runs for re-election in 2020.

Going back to 1914 — the last midterm year when turnout surpassed 2018 — the record for turnout in a presidential cycle was 63.8 percent in 1960, when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon. For some comparison, turnout was 61.6 percent in 2008, when Illinois Sen. Barack Obama mobilized a new coalition of Democratic voters, and 60.1 percent in 2016 when Trump mobilized a new coalition of Republicans.

Two years from now, turnout will likely set a new modern record that could dwarf previous ones.

Qualitatively, the bases of both parties should be at a fever pitch because of Trump and a potentially progressive Democratic nominee, with issues such as the Supreme Court, immigration, health care and the economy at the forefront of people’s minds. And independent voters may feel pressure, after four years, to take a stance for or against a polarizing president.

Quantitatively, the smallest difference between turnout in a midterm and a subsequent presidential election was 9 points between the 1918 and 1920 elections and the 1970 and 1972 elections. That would put 2020 turnout at a minimum of about 59 percent, just five points shy of the record.

Over the last century, the average difference in turnout between a midterm and a subsequent presidential election has been 16 points. That would pin 2020 turnout at about 66 percent, setting a new record. The largest difference was 23.4 points, from the 2014 midterm to the 2016 presidential. A similar dynamic would put 2020 turnout at a considerable 73 percent, which would rival 1900, when GOP President William McKinley faced down Democrat William Jennings Bryan in his winning re-election bid.

It’s too early to declare a winner in the 2020 presidential race, particularly without knowing the Democratic nominee. But as long as Trump is on the ballot and part of the conversation, expect another turnout record to be shattered.

“This is the most ambitious and most effective voter education, get-out-the-vote program directed at the faith-based vote in a midterm election in modern political history,” Faith & Freedom Coalition President Ralph Reed said the day after the November elections.

But since turnout was up across the board, white evangelicals made up the same percentage of the electorate as they always do.

After ticking up from 23 percent of the electorate in 2004 to 24 percent in 2006 and 26 percent in 2008, the share of the white evangelical vote has been unshaken at 25 percent in 2010, 26 percent in 2012, 26 percent in 2014, and 26 percent in 2016. And in last month’s midterms, white evangelicals made up, you guessed it, 26 percent of the electorate, according to the exit polls.

White evangelicals continue to be a staunchly Republican bloc of voters, but their support for GOP candidates (75 percent to 22 percent) dipped a bit compared to their support for President Donald Trump two years ago (81 percent to 16 percent).

Reed said “conservative Christians” — apparently a broader group composed of more than white evangelicals — made up 35 percent of the electorate. That’s according to an Election Day survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for Faith & Freedom. Previous surveys showed conservative Christians making up 33 percent of the electorate in 2016 and 32 percent in 2014.

In an article in the Christian Examiner, Reed stressed that increased white evangelical turnout in states such as Florida, Georgia, Indiana and Missouri helped boost GOP candidates in competitive races.

In Florida, white evangelicals made up 21 percent of the electorate in 2016 compared to 29 percent in 2018, and voted significantly for GOP Gov. Rick Scott (80 percent) and former Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis (77 percent) in their statewide contests. Trump received 85 percent of the white evangelical vote in 2016. The 2014 exit poll apparently didn’t ask a comparable question about white evangelicals in Florida.

In Georgia, white evangelicals made up 34 percent of the electorate in both 2016 and 2018, but that’s down from 39 percent in 2014. White evangelicals gave Trump 92 percent of their vote in 2016, and they backed Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, 88 percent to 11 percent, over former state House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams in this year’s gubernatorial contest.

In Indiana, white evangelicals made up 39 percent of the electorate in 2016 and 41 percent in 2018, and voted for Republican Mike Braun 72 percent to 23 percent over Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly this year. There wasn’t a statewide exit poll in 2014 for comparable midterm figures.

And in Missouri, white evangelicals made up 35 percent of the electorate in 2016 and 38 percent in 2018. They backed Republican Josh Hawley 75 percent to 23 percent over Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill this year after supporting Trump with 83 percent in 2016. There wasn’t a statewide exit poll in 2014 for comparable midterm figures.

In one top-tier Senate race, white evangelicals might have delivered the race for a Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin. They made up 54 percent of the Mountain State electorate, but GOP state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey won them just 53 percent to 45 percent. There wasn’t an exit poll in West Virginia in 2016, but Trump has remained popular in the state, presumably also among evangelicals.

In Nevada, white evangelicals boosted their share of the electorate from 13 percent in 2016 to 23 percent in 2018. And they voted for Republican Sen. Dean Heller (82 percent) this year by a larger margin than Trump (68 percent) in 2016, but it wasn’t enough to deliver the senator a second full term.

While white evangelicals might have been a significant bloc of voters in the Senate, their relevance in House races might be waning. In 2006, Democrats gained 30 House seats while losing white evangelical voters by 42 points. In 2018, Democrats are poised to gain 40 seats while losing white evangelical voters by 53 points.

When I was a kid in small-town Oregon, my family would occasionally go to King’s Table, and my sister and I would get free rein at the buffet.

I became famous in my own family for my condiment salad — an impressive collection of bacon bits, croutons, shredded cheese, sunflower seeds and plenty of ranch dressing. Essentially, my strategy involved choosing what looked and tasted good and avoiding anything of nutritional value.

These midterm elections were a buffet for both parties. Yes, there are more delicious morsels for Democrats, but there are enough results for Republicans to make their own condiment salad, ignoring losses that might otherwise cause the party to make some changes.

The Democratic plate includes gaining at least 40 seats in the House coupled with a new majority, taking over seven governorships and more than 300 state legislative seats, winning a U.S. Senate seat in a Trump state (Arizona), and holding down their total losses in the Senate while defending a difficult map.

The less savory results for Democrats include Ohio, where they lost the governorship to a 35-year politician and failed to take over any House seats. After losing the 12th District special election in suburban Columbus by less than a percentage point, Democrat Danny O’Connor lost to Republican Troy Balderson by nearly 5 points in the rematch. Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown won re-election, but by just 6 points against an underwhelming GOP opponent in a race that never received much national attention. Democrats will have to decide whether Ohio is politically salvageable.

Florida also has to leave a bitter taste for Democrats. The party lost two marquee statewide races to polarizing GOP nominees and Democrats have to wonder how they did so poorly in a state President Donald Trump carried only narrowly in 2016.

There are fewer attractive choices at the buffet for Republicans. Expanding their Senate majority, picking up a governorship (albeit in Alaska), and winning statewide contests in Florida would almost certainly make their plate.

But even if Republicans want to ignore the losses now, at some point, they will have to face the realities of being the minority in the House and suffering some significant talent and diversity drain after losing Reps. Carlos Curbelo, Erik Paulsen, Ryan Costello, Mike Coffman, Scott Taylor, Barbara Comstock, and Mia Love. They’ll have to come to grips with a collapse in the suburbs, missed opportunities to gain more Senate seats, and the loss of some key governorships in advance of redistricting. (Republicans lost the governorship in Wisconsin, where they had deemed the state GOP to be infallible and unbeatable.)

But what happened in the elections is less important than what the parties think happened in the elections because the latter will drive future behavior.

For example, it’s clear that Trump believes his immigration message and tone was the reason Republicans “won,” and he publicly blamed the House losses on a failure to embrace him. Even though Republicans suffered heavy House losses because of the president’s unpopularity, Trump will continue to act, talk and tweet in the way that he thinks has proved successful.

It’s still unclear how Democrats will react to the election results, particularly losses by some higher-profile progressive candidates. They could interpret them as reasons to moderate, or they could double down on a shift to the left as a contrast to the Republicans. Listen for the clues in the coming weeks to understand where Democrats are headed.

But the biggest takeaway from this story is to remember to always use a clean plate and to please wash your hands before going through the buffet line.

Midterm elections and presidential cycles have such different dynamics that the two should almost never be discussed together. That will not prevent people from doing so, but they should resist the temptation.

Midterms tend to be referendums on the incumbent president, while each presidential election is a choice between nominees.

Of course, a presidential re-election contest is something of a referendum on the incumbent, since sitting officeholders seeking another term will be evaluated on the basis of their performance in addition to what they promise for the future.

But the existence of an alternative on the ballot makes a presidential year very different from a midterm year.

That’s why connecting the dots from the last midterm election to the next presidential contest is so unwise.

Initially, Democrat Michael Dukakis looked like the clear favorite in 1988 as the candidate of change after eight years of Ronald Reagan. But Vice President George H.W. Bush redefined the technocratic Massachusetts governor as weak on crime, too liberal and personally weak (whether riding in a tank or responding to a hypothetical debate question about his wife).

Bush won by transforming the 1988 election from a referendum on the previous eight years to a choice between the two nominees and parties.

Twenty years later, again without an incumbent on the ballot, Democrat Barack Obama offered his vision for the future but also successfully portrayed Republican John McCain as offering a third term of George W. Bush — an option that most Americans found unappealing.

And of course, in the most recent presidential contest, the politically inexperienced Donald Trump won by driving up former Secretary of State and Sen. Hillary Clinton’s negatives and making her unacceptable to an important part of the electorate.

In presidential years, voters cast separate ballots for president and for Congress. During midterms, those same voters don’t have a presidential ballot, so they don’t have a direct way to express their dissatisfaction with the person in the Oval Office apart from voting against the nominees of the president’s party.

How does all this relate to 2018 and 2020? Last week’s midterm election was primarily about Trump.

Red state voters, enthusiastic about the president’s performance and wanting to elect a more “Trumpy” Congress, supported Republican nominees.

Those voters were making a partisan and ideological statement.

Blue state voters also wanted to make a statement about the Trump/Republican agenda and about the president’s character and behavior.

With Trump not on the ballot — but traveling around the country saying that he was in fact on the ballot — the only way to send a signal of dissatisfaction to the White House and to make a statement about changing the direction of the country was to vote against Republicans for federal office. That is exactly what swing voters (including independents and college-educated whites) and core Democratic demographic groups did.

Democrats of various stripes had no difficulty agreeing that Trump needed to be stopped and that consensus produced both a huge anti-Trump turnout and a surge of votes against Republican officeholders.

Trump, who in rally after rally sounded partisan and ideological, united Democrats and energized them, turning them out to vote for Democratic House nominees.

But two years from now, there will be a fundamentally different dynamic.

Democrats will spend more than a year fighting among themselves about their party’s presidential nomination. (If you have any doubt about that, just remember that on election night some in the party were already arguing about their leader in the House of Representatives.)

Progressive and pragmatist/establishment Democrats will demonize each other during debates and campaign stops, making it more difficult for the party to rally behind the eventual nominee.

That fight will give Trump many opportunities to belittle his adversaries, play up Democratic divisions and remind Republicans, independents and college-educated white women why they didn’t vote Democratic in 2016.

Trump and his GOP allies tried to make the 2018 midterms about Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic funder George Soros, the economy and the “fake” media. But they were unable to so — they never really had much of a chance — because the president is such a dominant political figure.

But in 2020, the Democratic ticket could make Trump look better to some swing voters who sent a message of dissatisfaction this year but might find someone like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren or former Attorney General Eric Holder unacceptable alternatives.

It’s tempting to draw lessons about 2020 by looking at 2018, just as it is tempting to pronounce at this early date which states will determine the next presidential election. Don’t do either one just yet.

There are too many uncertainties.

Give the new cycle some time to unfold. Watch the economy. Watch President Trump. Watch the tone of the Democrats.

Wait to see how domestic and international events change public opinion. And most important, take a break to collect your thoughts and to regain some sanity.

Even though it looks like California will be counting votes until Christmas, I’m ready to close the book on the 2018 midterm elections now that the Mississippi Senate race is over. Yes, I know there are runoffs in Georgia and Louisiana for state races, but the marquee matchups are complete.

Here are some thoughts before we turn all of our attention to 2020:

All that for one seat?
After two years of fighting, spending, and campaigning, and one party being handed a very favorable map, the U.S. Senate will be one seat different at the beginning of the 116th Congress than it was at the beginning of the 115th Congress. Republicans gained two Senate seats in the November elections, but lost the Alabama race in the Dec. 2017 special election. So the net change is minimal. The GOP majority shifted from 52-48 in Jan. 2017 to 53-47 in Jan. 2019.

A league of her own
From the public hanging remark to her debate performance, it was pretty clear that Cindy Hyde-Smith was out of her league. The entire race felt like a classic case of a former state legislator and lower-level statewide officeholder who wasn’t ready for the hotter spotlight of a U.S. Senate race. Former Rep. Mike Espy might have been a little rusty more than two decades after his last congressional run, but his biggest handicap was being a Democrat in a Republican state.

Moving the baseline
After all the attention surrounding the senator’s public hanging comment, where she went to school, and what bills she passed in the legislature, Hyde Smith’s final percentage wasn’t dramatically different from that of a typical Mississippi Republican candidate. The Inside Elections Baseline Republican performance of Mississippi is 58 percent and Hyde-Smith received 54 percent. But Espy narrowed the gap, receiving 46 percent compared to the Baseline Democratic Performance of 40 percent.

Special election slog
Through the very end of the cycle, the special election trend continued. In virtually every instance, Democrats overperformed. Republicans’ saving grace was that most of the special elections took place in GOP-friendly territory, so their win-loss record wasn’t terrible. But that dynamic wasn’t enough to stem general election losses in the House, where the battlefield was in more Democratic or toss-up districts.

Every seat matters
Even though the majority wasn’t at stake in Mississippi, the outcome is still consequential. Hyde-Smith’s victory gives Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a little extra margin for the next two years and it makes it one seat more difficult for Democrats to regain the majority in the 2020 elections.

The delay in other key states was a result of narrow margins and recounts, but the race in Mississippi was never likely to end on Election Day. The state hosted two Senate elections this year: one for GOP Sen. Roger Wicker, and the other a special election to fill the remainder of former GOP Sen. Thad Cochran’s term. Given that three well-known candidates were on the special election ballot, the most likely scenario was…

This is paid content. Subscribers can read the full article on the website.